Where does morality come from?

[VirOptimus]

I have no idea what that means.

Ok, I dont get your post either.

 

[Bobber]

I have another very important question to ask of everyone.

I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.

If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?

I don't know about convincing an atheist about what I believe about this but the morality of God merely reflects how the LIFE and LIGHT of God exists. Outside of God is DEATH. The wages of sin is DEATH.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok, I dont get your post either.

I was claiming what you said was racist, bigoted and offensive.

 

[stevevw]

I mean describe it in some way that is clear and concise, not open to interpretation. I can describe the wavelength of light and thus colour in a concrete way. I can discuss the amount of water in a swimming pool in a concrete way. I can discuss how well my piano is tuned in a concrete way.

This shows that you don't understand how the evidence works for morality and perhaps explains why you don't get the logical argument that you ask for concrete evidence. We cannot give concrete evidence for morality. Unlike water light and piano tuning which are physical morality has no physical aspect to it. So how do you think we can get evidence for objective morality in that case.

If there is an objective morality, then that objective morality exists as part of the nature of reality because it isn't just found inside people's minds.

So first if that the case how can we detect it in nature and second if it is real how can we then know it within ourselves.

No clear moral position? But you said there is an objective morality! Surely that should be clear!

Moral truths are clear but just because it is clear doesn't mean people have to acknowledge the truth. Like I said people have more of a tendency to self-interest and sin. People have free will and despite moral truth, they still want to go their own way.

People go around claiming morality is subjective yet they always find themselves reacting to the moral situations objectively in contradiction to their subjective stand. So they might not necessarily want to follow the objective truth because of their subjective moral stand but they can't help react objectively because there is moral truth within them that they cannot suppress.

Or maybe people are just going with subjective opinions just like I said.

If they are then why do people react against their own subjective positions like morals are objective? Just because there may be objective morals doesn't mean everyone is forced to follow them. It's like some who has a secret. They try to live with the secret but the truth comes out in certain situations. They can't help it and give themselves away. But some can deny the truth long enough and learn to live with the secret.

It isn't that people should only live like there are objective morals. People have free will. It is that a subjective has no grounding for morality and therefore opens the door for different possible truths. Sometimes truths are turned into lies and lies into truths. But no one can really tell or take a real stand against what they think is a lie under a subjective system. The fact they do take a stand only supports objective morality.

 

[Speedwell]

This shows that you don't understand how the evidence works for morality and perhaps explains why you don't get the logical argument that you ask for concrete evidence. We cannot give concrete evidence for morality. Unlike water light and piano tuning which are physical morality has no physical aspect to it. So how do you think we can get evidence for objective morality in that case.

So first if that the case how can we detect it in nature and second if it is real how can we then know it within ourselves.

Moral truths are clear but just because it is clear doesn't mean people have to acknowledge the truth. Like I said people have more of a tendency to self-interest and sin. People have free will and despite moral truth, they still want to go their own way.

People go around claiming morality is subjective yet they always find themselves reacting to the moral situations objectively in contradiction to their subjective stand. So they might not necessarily want to follow the objective truth because of their subjective moral stand but they can't help react objectively because there is moral truth within them that they cannot suppress.

If they are then why do people react against their own subjective positions like morals are objective? Just because there may be objective morals doesn't mean everyone is forced to follow them. It's like some who has a secret. They try to live with the secret but the truth comes out in certain situations. They can't help it and give themselves away. But some can deny the truth long enough and learn to live with the secret.

It isn't that people should only live like there are objective morals. People have free will. It is that a subjective has no grounding for morality and therefore opens the door for different possible truths. Sometimes truths are turned into lies and lies into truths. But no one can really tell or take a real stand against what they think is a lie under a subjective system. The fact they do take a stand only supports objective morality.

It certainly supports the idea that there are universally accepted moral principles which lie beyond conscious rational deliberation. I don't think we are in disagreement about that.

 

[Kylie]

This shows that you don't understand how the evidence works for morality and perhaps explains why you don't get the logical argument that you ask for concrete evidence. We cannot give concrete evidence for morality. Unlike water light and piano tuning which are physical morality has no physical aspect to it. So how do you think we can get evidence for objective morality in that case.

Have you not been paying attention to my posts? The fact that we can't get concrete evidence for morality is evidence that it is not objective! If it was objective, we would be able to get concrete evidence for it! Stop making excuses for why you can't produce any evidence for your claims.

So first if that the case how can we detect it in nature and second if it is real how can we then know it within ourselves.

The same way we can show any other objective fact about the world. With concrete evidence. The fact that you have said that this can't be done for morality should tell you something.

Moral truths are clear but just because it is clear doesn't mean people have to acknowledge the truth. Like I said people have more of a tendency to self-interest and sin. People have free will and despite moral truth, they still want to go their own way.

People go around claiming morality is subjective yet they always find themselves reacting to the moral situations objectively in contradiction to their subjective stand. So they might not necessarily want to follow the objective truth because of their subjective moral stand but they can't help react objectively because there is moral truth within them that they cannot suppress.

If they reacted objectively, then they'd always do the same thing, no matter who it was reacting, just like everyone reacts the same to putting their hand on a hot stove.

If they are then why do people react against their own subjective positions like morals are objective? Just because there may be objective morals doesn't mean everyone is forced to follow them. It's like some who has a secret. They try to live with the secret but the truth comes out in certain situations. They can't help it and give themselves away. But some can deny the truth long enough and learn to live with the secret.

Because the morals are SUBJECTIVE.

Honestly, it's not that hard to understand.

It isn't that people should only live like there are objective morals. People have free will. It is that a subjective has no grounding for morality and therefore opens the door for different possible truths. Sometimes truths are turned into lies and lies into truths. But no one can really tell or take a real stand against what they think is a lie under a subjective system. The fact they do take a stand only supports objective morality.

But they don't all take a stand for the same position! Because it's SUBJECTIVE.

Honerstly not a complicated concept, yet you seem to refuse to get it.

 

[stevevw]

So now you are saying that in some cases there is no objective morality? That's not what you said earlier!

No, I didn't say that or may I have no explained things properly. I am saying there is no objective measure under a subjective system to determine what is right and wrong. Just because people may only go with what they believe are subjective moral views doesn't mean there is no objective moral truth to that situation.

You haven't spent much time studying animals then, have you? Animals display a huge variety of emotion, why do you think they are incapable of morality? Jailbreak Rat: Selfless Rodents Spring Their Pals and Share Their Sweets

If what you say is true then you have to explain how the immoral acts animals do are somehow acceptable under the same system. How animals can kill a baby like it is nothing and not feel any emotion or guilt. Animals do things we say are actable, we are not locking animals up for murder, are we.

I bet that most people who were actually in that situation would still do it.

Yes, they probably would and that is the nature of our sinful side. We are primarily selfish. The point is does that make it morally right. If it does make it right then it opens the door for all sorts of justifications and rationalizations that turn wrong into right. That is what happens under a subjective system based on evolution. We could make rape morally OK if we needed more people to keep our species going and women refused to cooperate.

Did you see that the very article your posted has several suggested solutions to the problem?

Yes, that's why its called the hard problem because scientists have several different views as to what consciousness is yet there is no definite single one. This could include all hypothesis that makes consciousness a part of the physical brain to being a separate immaterial thing.

And whereas the gravitational influences of dark matter are always the same, the influences of morality are different according to different people. Doesn't support your objective morality idea.

You have misrepresented the argument. Despite there being indirect support of Dark matter through gravitational waves people differ in their subjective views about that indirect evidence. Some say that gravitational waves are not supported, others say there is no dark matter period, still, others say there may be other indirect supports and there may be other views as well.

That is the same for objective morality. There could be objective morals but people have different subjective views. That could include there are no objective morals, there are objective morals but they are natural laws, others may say they are God's moral laws. Some may say the indirect evidence is from people's reactions, others may say it is how some wrongs are universal etc.

And the trouble is that if we compare your perception of the real world with my perception of it, we can compare them and get the same conclusion. That doesn't happen with morality.

A proper basic belief about something can only happen in isolation. It has to be confirmed and justified for the individual. If it needs confirmation form someone else to make it valid then it's not a proper basic belief.

But we can come together and agree on this as individuals but that is not the basic support for our justification. It is purely on the fact that we live and react to the physical world like it is really there and not some virtual reality. It is the same for objective morals. We live and react like morality is real and not some view or opinion in our head.

 

[Kylie]

No, I didn't say that or may I have no explained things properly. I am saying there is no objective measure under a subjective system to determine what is right and wrong.

Isn't that what I've been saying?

Just because people may only go with what they believe are subjective moral views doesn't mean there is no objective moral truth to that situation.

Except you've been insisting that people are going with what they believe are objective moral views and claiming that's proof of objective morality.

If what you say is true then you have to explain how the immoral acts animals do are somehow acceptable under the same system. How animals can kill a baby like it is nothing and not feel any emotion or guilt. Animals do things we say are actable, we are not locking animals up for murder, are we.

How are they acceptable? Because there is no objective morality and we can't apply our moral viewpoints to them!

Yes, they probably would and that is the nature of our sinful side. We are primarily selfish. The point is does that make it morally right. If it does make it right then it opens the door for all sorts of justifications and rationalizations that turn wrong into right. That is what happens under a subjective system based on evolution. We could make rape morally OK if we needed more people to keep our species going and women refused to cooperate.

Wow, you just go all over the place. One moment you are invoking the argument from popularity when you say that most people believing morality is objective is proof that it must be so, and now you are saying that this reasoning doesn't work because even if most people agreed with forced impregnation it wouldn't make it right.

Let me know when you can make up your mind, okay?

Yes, that's why its called the hard problem because scientists have several different views as to what consciousness is yet there is no definite single one. This could include all hypothesis that makes consciousness a part of the physical brain to being a separate immaterial thing.

But if there are several possible solutions, you can't say it's a problem, can you? At least, not some nail-in-the-coffin problem that you've portrayed it as.

You have misrepresented the argument. Despite there being indirect support of Dark matter through gravitational waves people differ in their subjective views about that indirect evidence. Some say that gravitational waves are not supported, others say there is no dark matter period, still, others say there may be other indirect supports and there may be other views as well.

That is the same for objective morality. There could be objective morals but people have different subjective views. That could include there are no objective morals, there are objective morals but they are natural laws, others may say they are God's moral laws. Some may say the indirect evidence is from people's reactions, others may say it is how some wrongs are universal etc.

But the fact remains that people can at least point to the evidence for dark matter and say, "You don't need to take my word for it that it exists, go and see the evidence yourself," and people can go and look, and they agree that the evidence is there.

A proper basic belief about something can only happen in isolation.

Citation required.

It has to be confirmed and justified for the individual. If it needs confirmation form someone else to make it valid then it's not a proper basic belief.

Then my proper basic belief is that you are wrong. By your reasoning I don't need anyone to confirm it, therefore you are wrong and I have proven it, because I followed your procedure and reached a conclusion through a process that you said produces valid conclusions.

But we can come together and agree on this as individuals but that is not the basic support for our justification. It is purely on the fact that we live and react to the physical world like it is really there and not some virtual reality. It is the same for objective morals. We live and react like morality is real and not some view or opinion in our head.

LIKE.

LIKE.

Like does not mean IS.

It seems that you still need to learn that.

 

[VirOptimus]

I was claiming what you said was racist, bigoted and offensive.

Hahaha, you are a funny (white) man.

 

[stevevw]

Have you not been paying attention to my posts? The fact that we can't get concrete evidence for morality is evidence that it is not objective! If it was objective, we would be able to get concrete evidence for it! Stop making excuses for why you can't produce any evidence for your claims.

Then you don't understand the evidence for morality and are limiting your view to what is regarded as real to scientism. The claim that there are objective morals is a "truth" statement and not something that should be proven by scientific testing of physical objects.

“Truth”, is usually a property of propositions a statement about something. Whereas a scientific fact such as the earth is a sphere is just a fact and has no truth value.

So to say there are objective morals based on our lived experience of morality is a proposition which is a self-supporting claim. It is up to the skeptic to show this is wrong by providing a defeater and until one is provided we are justified to believe that objective moral exist based on our lived experience of morality.

This form of evidence is common for the philosophical aspect of life and if we did not allow them we would not be able to have any justified experiences or beliefs about no material aspects of life.

Our lived experience of morality doesn't have any direct evidence for objective morality but there is indirect evidence from the way individuals and society appeal to objective morality.

So though there is no evidence like scientific testing of a physical object there are philosophical propositions and indirect support which are sufficient to rely on and this is something philosophers and even scientists often use to support non-material claims about life.

The same way we can show any other objective facts about the world. With concrete evidence. The fact that you have said that this can't be done for morality should tell you something.

As I said there are different ways to support something. Do you honestly think that no one can make truth claims or support non-physical aspects of life? You need to read some Aristotle’s logic, especially his theory of the syllogism. If we disallowed logical propositions then no one could make any truth statements based on logic.

A logical proposition is any proposition that can be reduced by replacement of its constituent terms to a proposition expressing a logical truth—e.g., to a proposition such as “If p and q, then p.”
Logical proposition | philosophy

Likewise, do you think that even in science that the evidence for all claims and ideas are based on concrete support? What about the theories that are purely based on mathematical equations like relativity or gravity. We can't see or measure anything concrete. We only have indirect evidence just like we do with objective morality.

What you forget is that objective morality is the perceived status quo for morality and not the other way around. Most philosophers and people believe there are moral truths. So it is up to the skeptic to show this is wrong. That is come up with a defeater of our lived moral experience.

If they reacted objectively, then they'd always do the same thing, no matter who it was reacting, just like everyone reacts the same to putting their hand on a hot stove.

That's a "either and or" logical fallacy and also a "non-sequitur". This assumes that we should measure morality like it has a physical measurement when it is moral about a "truth" statement. It also limits the evidence to certain options because of this assumption.

The point is if you look at the way people react you will find that most do react the same way when you peel away the differences in understanding with nations and cultures. But just because there may be objective morals doesn't mean people will follow them.

People can also deny the truth and avoid the truth. But that doesn't mean the truth is not there. We are not robots and have free will. We all know there is truth and that the truth can be covered up. But in the end, it comes out in one way or another.

 

[stevevw]

Because the morals are SUBJECTIVE.
Honestly, it's not that hard to understand.

So you're saying because people deny the truth morals are subjective. That is a paradoxical statement. How can someone deny the truth out there in the world if there is no truth? I am saying that it is because there are moral truths that people can deny them. But in denying them this does not follow that this means that morals are subjective. If morals were subjective there would be no moral truths.

But they don't all take a stand for the same position! Because it's SUBJECTIVE.

If you look at the examples of lived moral experience I think you will find that people do. I have explained this before. You only have to read the opinion columns on social problems, social media, forums like this one, look at company rules for conduct, universal human rights, society laws and rules, government policies.

They all propose a similar moral position that does not allow any subjective opinion. People must follow that morality and anyone who tries to claim that it is OK to go against these moral positions is regarded as a sick and unsound individual who is objective wrong in their opinion.

 

[Speedwell]

So to say there are objective morals based on our lived experience of morality is a proposition which is a self-supporting claim. It is up to the skeptic to show this is wrong by providing a defeater and until one is provided we are justified to believe that objective moral exist based on our lived experience of morality.

Of course you can believe it if you want. Moral objectivity as a proposition is unfalsifiable. And certainly our "lived moral experience" is consistent with it. But "lived moral experience" is not a proof of moral objectivity. In order to be a proof of moral objectivity, our "lived moral experience" must be shown to have no other possible explanation but moral objectivity.

 

[stevevw]

Of course you can believe it if you want. Moral objectivity as a proposition is unfalsifiable. And certainly our "lived moral experience" is consistent with it. But "lived moral experience" is not a proof of moral objectivity. In order to be a proof of moral objectivity, our "lived moral experience" must be shown to have no other possible explanation but moral objectivity.

There are other possible explanations. Evolution is one, another is what some atheist use in "human wellbeing", and still another is using a form of natural law that is like a physical law. But all of these can be shown to be wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Isn't that what I've been saying?

I am not sure as I cannot work it out. Haven't you claimed that under a subjective position people can still make objective moral statements? But if you agree that under a subjective moral system there is no grounding for morality being right or wrong then what is the point of anyone making a stand based on a certain moral act being wrong.

Like making a protest that the abuse or rape of women is wrong. They are putting moral position out into the world thus making a "truth" statement that these acts are wrong. It is no longer their subjective personal view but one they want to take a stand on that it is wrong for anyone no matter what their personal view is "wrong".

Except you've been insisting that people are going with what they believe are objective moral views and claiming that's proof of objective morality.

How is it not proof? There is no other way to support objective morals. A person can still claim a subjective view but react like morals are objective. Its sort of like their little secret that they don't want to admit yet can't help but acknowledge it.

You have to remember that though someone claiming that morality is subjective may say they are just aligning their morals to what appears to be an objective position will still need to support the idea that anyone else under that system can have an opposing view that may be offensive and it will still be an acceptable and valid position.

Most people who claim subjective morality cannot bring themselves to admit that others under their own system have a right to claim that things like rape or child abuse is morally OK because they intuitively know it's not OK. But then that contradicts their own subjective moral system.

How are they acceptable? Because there is no objective morality and we can't apply our moral viewpoints to them!

I meant to say animals do things that we humans say are morally unacceptable. So under a subjective system those unacceptable acts animals do should be ok to do. We as humans like animals should be able to kill our child if we think there is not enough food for the family unit. We should be able to bash our boss or head of our group into submission so that we can become the dominant person of the group. We should be able to take other people's food and possessions so that ensures we survive and not them.

Wow, you just go all over the place. One moment you are invoking the argument from popularity when you say that most people believing morality is objective is proof that it must be so,

When have I said that. In fact, I have said on many occasions that the argument for objective morality is not or not just based on popularity, volume, or quantity if you remember because you were continually challenging me about it. So I have been consistent.

and now you are saying that this reasoning doesn't work because even if most people agreed with forced impregnation it wouldn't make it right.
Let me know when you can make up your mind, okay?

I think you are either misreading my posts or I am not explaining things right. But if you read what I said I said
That is what happens under a subjective system based on evolution. We could make rape morally OK if we needed more people to keep our species going and women refused to cooperate.

So I am clearly talking about subjective morality and not objective morality. That under a subject9ve system because there is no objective measure of morality and because as you say we act just like animals or animals act just like us then acts like rape can be rationalized as OK under a subjective system if it means we survive as a species and we only create morals from a sociobiological process which has nothing to do with why something is right or wrong. .

But if there are several possible solutions, you can't say it's a problem, can you? At least, not some nail-in-the-coffin problem that you've portrayed it as.

Yes so therefore a materialist or physicalist who claims that only concrete objective measures are the only evidence that counts are wrong in the overall scheme of things.

They are only taking on the position which happens to assume that everything stems from a material origin. But they cannot claim that this is the only evidence because they have no way of knowing everything and in fact, their methodology is incapable of knowing. Especially answering philosophical questions that we all know are an important aspect of life.

But the fact remains that people can at least point to the evidence for dark matter and say, "You don't need to take my word for it that it exists, go and see the evidence yourself," and people can go and look, and they agree that the evidence is there.

I was only using that example to show that even in science there are ideas that are promoted as valid yet have no direct support because it fits in with the currently accepted theories. The multiverse is another. It is still not the same type of evidence required for philosophical propositions as there can be no physical evidence to point to. So we have to take a different approach which still allows people to make truth claims.

The evidence for dark matter is still indirect anyway. Anyone who points to that evidence still hasn't got concrete support as they are only assuming that gravitational waves are associated with dark matter. They may be associated with something else. Scientists do get things wrong and have to reformulate things you know. Just because they make a claim doesn't make it concrete and an objective fact.

Dark matter may not actually exist – and our alternative theory can be put to the test
https://phys.org/news/2019-01-dark-alternative-theory.html

Citation required.

I have already provided this.
I've added a quick reference to basic beliefs and how they can be justified.
Basic belief
Basic belief - Wikipedia

These links I posted previously go into more detail.
Perceptual Experience and Perceptual Justification
Perceptual Experience and Perceptual Justification (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Winter 2018 Edition)

Visual Confidences and Direct Perceptual Justification
This paper offers an argument for the view that visual states comprise not only content but a confidence relation to that content. This confidence relation lets us explain how visual states can offer a non-inferential perceptual justification of differing degrees for external world beliefs.
Visual Confidences and Direct Perceptual Justification on JSTOR

What makes a basic belief a properly basic belief?
What makes a basic belief a properly basic belief?

Then my proper basic belief is that you are wrong. By your reasoning I don't need anyone to confirm it, therefore you are wrong and I have proven it, because I followed your procedure and reached a conclusion through a process that you said produces valid conclusions.

It doesn't work that way. There is more to it than that. You will have to read the articles. The belief also needs to meet other criteria that logically stand up and subjective morality doesn't. If we apply this to the physical world example a person may subjectively believe that the we live in some hologram or have a number of personal beliefs about reality and they are built on other beliefs about life. But this can be shown to be an illogical belief based on how that person actually lives and treats their surroundings.

LIKE.

LIKE.

Like does not mean IS.

It seems that you still need to learn that.

OK let me reframe that "LIKE into an "IS" then.

 

[Speedwell]

There are other possible explanations. Evolution is one, another is what some atheist use in "human wellbeing", and still another is using a form of natural law that is like a physical law. But all of these can be shown to be wrong.

No, you have to show that all other possible explanations are wrong. Just knocking down some straw men isn't enough.

 

[Kylie]

Then you don't understand the evidence for morality and are limiting your view to what is regarded as real to scientism. The claim that there are objective morals is a "truth" statement and not something that should be proven by scientific testing of physical objects.

I am limiting my view of what is "real" to what can be demonstrated.

I don't see why I should accept anything as true if it can not be demonstrated to be true.

“Truth”, is usually a property of propositions a statement about something.

This sentence does not appear to make sense.

Whereas a scientific fact such as the earth is a sphere is just a fact and has no truth value.

So something can be factually correct and yet contain no truth? What in the world are you saying?

So to say there are objective morals based on our lived experience of morality is a proposition which is a self-supporting claim. It is up to the skeptic to show this is wrong by providing a defeater and until one is provided we are justified to believe that objective moral exist based on our lived experience of morality.

Oh, would you stop using this old argument! How many times do I have to tell you that our lived experience of morality is SUBJECTIVE?

Our lived experience of morality doesn't have any direct evidence for objective morality but there is indirect evidence from the way individuals and society appeal to objective morality.

Why in the world do you keep trotting out that tired old argument that I call you out on every single time when even you admit that it doesn't count as direct evidence?

And all you are doing is using your subjective opinion about a subjective experience as indirect evidence that morality is objective? How do you not see that this reason DOESN'T WORK?

So though there is no evidence like scientific testing of a physical object there are philosophical propositions and indirect support which are sufficient to rely on and this is something philosophers and even scientists often use to support non-material claims about life.

Please show me something that is viewed as an objective fact that does not rely on any scientific description.

As I said there are different ways to support something. Do you honestly think that no one can make truth claims or support non-physical aspects of life? You need to read some Aristotle’s logic, especially his theory of the syllogism. If we disallowed logical propositions then no one could make any truth statements based on logic.

A logical proposition is any proposition that can be reduced by replacement of its constituent terms to a proposition expressing a logical truth—e.g., to a proposition such as “If p and q, then p.”
Logical proposition | philosophy

Likewise, do you think that even in science that the evidence for all claims and ideas are based on concrete support? What about the theories that are purely based on mathematical equations like relativity or gravity. We can't see or measure anything concrete. We only have indirect evidence just like we do with objective morality.

What you forget is that objective morality is the perceived status quo for morality and not the other way around. Most philosophers and people believe there are moral truths. So it is up to the skeptic to show this is wrong. That is come up with a defeater of our lived moral experience.

Logic can be explained in almost mathematical like language.

Please do the same for morality.

If you can do that, I'll believe you.

That's a "either and or" logical fallacy and also a "non-sequitur". This assumes that we should measure morality like it has a physical measurement when it is moral about a "truth" statement. It also limits the evidence to certain options because of this assumption.

Nah, I'm talking about a peoples lived experience of putting their hands on hot stoves.

Surely you of all people understand how a person's lived experience can be evidence of something objective, right?

The point is if you look at the way people react you will find that most do react the same way when you peel away the differences in understanding with nations and cultures. But just because there may be objective morals doesn't mean people will follow them.

So you go from saying that people act like there are objective morals, and yet now you say that sometimes people DON'T act like there are objective morals?

You're just all over the place here, aren't you?

People can also deny the truth and avoid the truth. But that doesn't mean the truth is not there. We are not robots and have free will. We all know there is truth and that the truth can be covered up. But in the end, it comes out in one way or another.

When the person who is telling me that I am avoiding the truth is also incapable of showing me that truth, I don't find their claims very convincing.

 

[stevevw]

No, you have to show that all other possible explanations are wrong. Just knocking down some straw men isn't enough.

I have shown they are wrong or rather philosophers/ethicists have shown they are wrong. As mentioned using evolution as an explanation for objective morality doesn't explain morality doesn't work as there is no consistent grounding for morality. That's because morality is equated to survival and that can change according to changing environments and circumstances.

Human wellbeing doesn't work either because what is determined as wellbeing is also subjective. Using natural laws as the measure for morals is also unreal as morality needs to be grounded in a personal being as morality implies an obligation and a natural law cannot be personal or imply obligations to anyone no more than gravity can.

 

[Speedwell]

I have shown they are wrong or rather philosophers/ethicists have shown they are wrong. As mentioned using evolution as an explanation for objective morality doesn't explain morality doesn't work as there is no consistent grounding for morality. That's because morality is equated to survival and that can change according to changing environments and circumstances.

Human wellbeing doesn't work either because what is determined as wellbeing is also subjective. Using natural laws as the measure for morals is also unreal as morality needs to be grounded in a personal being as morality implies an obligation and a natural law cannot be personal or imply obligations to anyone no more than gravity can.

Yes, you have already knocked down those straw men--no sense dragging them in again.

 

[Kylie]

So you're saying because people deny the truth morals are subjective. That is a paradoxical statement. How can someone deny the truth out there in the world if there is no truth? I am saying that it is because there are moral truths that people can deny them. But in denying them this does not follow that this means that morals are subjective. If morals were subjective there would be no moral truths.

Wow, you look at this in such black and white terms. By your logic, there MUST be a truth, because if there is no truth, it can't be true because that would be an example of truth and we just said there was no truth.

In short, your dancing around with wordplay to prove your point while ignore that actual substance of the issue you are trying to define into being the way you want it to be.

The fact that there are no objective morals does not mean there's no such thing as truth.

If you look at the examples of lived moral experience I think you will find that people do. I have explained this before. You only have to read the opinion columns on social problems, social media, forums like this one, look at company rules for conduct, universal human rights, society laws and rules, government policies.

You know, given how many times you bring this up and how many times I've had to tell you that lived experiecnes are subjective, I'm beginning to think your just trolling.

They all propose a similar moral position that does not allow any subjective opinion. People must follow that morality and anyone who tries to claim that it is OK to go against these moral positions is regarded as a sick and unsound individual who is objective wrong in their opinion.

If that was true, then they would all propose an identical moral position. They do not.

In any case, the opinions about people who do not share those moral positions are likewise subjective.

 

[Kylie]

I am not sure as I cannot work it out. Haven't you claimed that under a subjective position people can still make objective moral statements? But if you agree that under a subjective moral system there is no grounding for morality being right or wrong then what is the point of anyone making a stand based on a certain moral act being wrong.

Like making a protest that the abuse or rape of women is wrong. They are putting moral position out into the world thus making a "truth" statement that these acts are wrong. It is no longer their subjective personal view but one they want to take a stand on that it is wrong for anyone no matter what their personal view is "wrong".

No.

I have said that under a subjective position, people can make claims that they THINK are objective but are still actually subjective.

How is it not proof? There is no other way to support objective morals. A person can still claim a subjective view but react like morals are objective. Its sort of like their little secret that they don't want to admit yet can't help but acknowledge it.

You have to remember that though someone claiming that morality is subjective may say they are just aligning their morals to what appears to be an objective position will still need to support the idea that anyone else under that system can have an opposing view that may be offensive and it will still be an acceptable and valid position.

Most people who claim subjective morality cannot bring themselves to admit that others under their own system have a right to claim that things like rape or child abuse is morally OK because they intuitively know it's not OK. But then that contradicts their own subjective moral system.

How is it not proof? Because subjective experiences are NEVER counted as objective proof, and yet you repeatedly invoke them as such.

I meant to say animals do things that we humans say are morally unacceptable. So under a subjective system those unacceptable acts animals do should be ok to do. We as humans like animals should be able to kill our child if we think there is not enough food for the family unit. We should be able to bash our boss or head of our group into submission so that we can become the dominant person of the group. We should be able to take other people's food and possessions so that ensures we survive and not them.

Did you REALLY think that was a good argument to use? The old, "If we're animals, we might as well act like animals," argument?

REALLY?

When have I said that. In fact, I have said on many occasions that the argument for objective morality is not or not just based on popularity, volume, or quantity if you remember because you were continually challenging me about it. So I have been consistent.

You use it every single tiome you make the "People's lived experiences are evidence for objective morality" argument. How many times have I responded to that? I've lost count.

I think you are either misreading my posts or I am not explaining things right. But if you read what I said I said
That is what happens under a subjective system based on evolution. We could make rape morally OK if we needed more people to keep our species going and women refused to cooperate.

No. Subjective morality doesn't mean you can convince people to just arbitrarily change their moral positions.

So I am clearly talking about subjective morality and not objective morality. That under a subject9ve system because there is no objective measure of morality and because as you say we act just like animals or animals act just like us then acts like rape can be rationalized as OK under a subjective system if it means we survive as a species and we only create morals from a sociobiological process which has nothing to do with why something is right or wrong. .

And most people would reject it because they understand rape is a horrible thing to do to a person.

Yes so therefore a materialist or physicalist who claims that only concrete objective measures are the only evidence that counts are wrong in the overall scheme of things.

Huh?

You say that Person A makes a claim, and Person B can provide several possible explanations why Person A's claim is wrong. And then you conclude that the people who disagree with Person A are therefore wrong?

How does that work?

They are only taking on the position which happens to assume that everything stems from a material origin. But they cannot claim that this is the only evidence because they have no way of knowing everything and in fact, their methodology is incapable of knowing. Especially answering philosophical questions that we all know are an important aspect of life.

Occam's Razor. We should not conclude there is something other than the detectable universe until we have evidence for it. To invoke it now without evidence is fallacious.

I was only using that example to show that even in science there are ideas that are promoted as valid yet have no direct support because it fits in with the currently accepted theories. The multiverse is another. It is still not the same type of evidence required for philosophical propositions as there can be no physical evidence to point to. So we have to take a different approach which still allows people to make truth claims.

Such things are not presented as FACT.

The evidence for dark matter is still indirect anyway. Anyone who points to that evidence still hasn't got concrete support as they are only assuming that gravitational waves are associated with dark matter. They may be associated with something else. Scientists do get things wrong and have to reformulate things you know. Just because they make a claim doesn't make it concrete and an objective fact.

There is a lot of evidence for Dark matter.

And yes, scientists do get things wrong. But when they do, they are ALWAYS replaced with better science. To suggest that a theory be replaced with something else when there is no current scientific reason to do so is at the very least premature.

I have already provided this.

Can you provide a link to the post where you did so please?

I've added a quick reference to basic beliefs and how they can be justified.
Basic belief
Basic belief - Wikipedia

Nother in there about isolation being required.

In any case, it seems that you are suggesting that we take morality being objective as an axiom. I see no reason to do this.

These links I posted previously go into more detail.
Perceptual Experience and Perceptual Justification
Perceptual Experience and Perceptual Justification (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Winter 2018 Edition)

Nothing in there about isolation being needed either.

Is there a specific part of that paper which you think shows that it is reasonable to conclude that there is an objective morality? If so, can you tell me which part?

Visual Confidences and Direct Perceptual Justification
This paper offers an argument for the view that visual states comprise not only content but a confidence relation to that content. This confidence relation lets us explain how visual states can offer a non-inferential perceptual justification of differing degrees for external world beliefs.
Visual Confidences and Direct Perceptual Justification on JSTOR

Yeah, I'm not going to register on a site just to read that article.

What makes a basic belief a properly basic belief?
What makes a basic belief a properly basic belief?

So you are claiming your belief that morality is objective is a basic belief because it is not based on other beliefs but by your experience of the world?

My experience is that morality is subjective.

Obviously we can not both be right. So you must ask yourself if your belief that morality is objective is based on any underlying beliefs. I'd say yes - your belief that morality comes from God.

It doesn't work that way. There is more to it than that. You will have to read the articles. The belief also needs to meet other criteria that logically stand up and subjective morality doesn't. If we apply this to the physical world example a person may subjectively believe that the we live in some hologram or have a number of personal beliefs about reality and they are built on other beliefs about life. But this can be shown to be an illogical belief based on how that person actually lives and treats their surroundings.

But that doesn't show that it is objectively true that we are not living in a hologram. It just shows that people don't act like we are in a hologram. And as I've said before, a person's experience isn't evidence for an objective fact.

OK let me reframe that "LIKE into an "IS" then.

The once again you are saying that a person's lived experience is objective, not subjective, and I've explained countless times why that is wrong.